The Mike Price/Alabama saga, continued...

[Wolverine]

Yeah, just look at this blatant matriarchal totalitarianism! It's a veritable conspiracy.

How Mike Price met his Destiny at a strip club

In addition to Price's extracurricular activities at the strip club, which apparently continued later at his hotel...

According to one of the students, a few weeks after Price was hired, the coach went to Buffalo's American Grille near campus and, after four hours of drinking, propositioned some female students. "I heard him tell several girls who he was buying drinks for that his wife was still back in Washington and he wanted them to come to his room at the GameDay Condos," one of the student sources said. "One of the girls lives at GameDay, and when we went by there at 2:30 a.m., he was stumbling around and told us he had forgotten the entry code [he needed] to get up in the elevator. One girl offered to help, and he tried to talk her into coming to his condo.

Gee, those damn feninazis will do anything to get a guy fired.

 

[Tmy]

Do you think if he was a good ol boy from the south they wouldve buried this story.

 

[Wolverine]

Do you think if he was a good ol boy from the south they wouldve buried this story.

If that were the case, Mike DuBose wouldn't have gotten canned.

There's no way they could have buried the story.

And, speaking of which, this one goes much deeper. Never seen anything like it in my life.

 

[Thumper]

Ok, I have to ask this.

What business is it of anyone whether the coach went to a strip club while on vacation? They are not illegal. And as for propositioning female students, that's not illegal, either. It seems to me that the school is attempting to impose their morality on the coach.

 

[Wolverine]

As we discussed here, he violated the terms of his contract:

The deal had a clause saying he could be fired for any behavior "that brings (the) employee into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule or that reflects unfavorably upon the reputation or the high moral or ethical standards of the University." (link)

While Price's behavior wasn't illegal (well, actually, some of it may have been, lol), it's not the sort of thing that's acceptable for someone in his position, particularly if you've agreed to refrain from doing anything that would reflect negatively on the school. Such escapades are not synonymous with the phrase job security in Div. 1-A football.

 

[Tricky]

Don't look now Wolvie, but you precious blue and gold may be on probation soon too.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Ok, I have to ask this.

What business is it of anyone whether the coach went to a strip club while on vacation? They are not illegal. And as for propositioning female students, that's not illegal, either.

It is certainly behavior that can get the school sued under Federal law for huge amounts of damages, especially if they let it go.

It was in the contract; it was explained to the man; he voluntarily accepted the contract. Does he now get to pick and choose what he "really, really" meant? Can the scholl say now that they know they agreed to pay $10 mil, but they decided that part of the contract was unecessary, so he get $4.00 and an Arby's coupon?

NA

 

[Wolverine]

Don't look now Wolvie, but you precious blue and gold may be on probation soon too.

Well, it's maize and blue, actually.

And if you're referring to the basketball program's debacle, I'm well aware of it. They received 3.5 years probation and an additional year's ban on post-season play, not to mention major scholarship reductions over the next several years. The whole thing has been an absolute atrocity, and I'm still severely pissed at the poor management of the program and that damned booster (who is now deceased) that caused all this.

If you're referring to a shadow looming over the Big House itself, please enlighten me.

 

[Thumper]

It is certainly behavior that can get the school sued under Federal law for huge amounts of damages, especially if they let it go.

It was in the contract; it was explained to the man; he voluntarily accepted the contract. Does he now get to pick and choose what he "really, really" meant? Can the scholl say now that they know they agreed to pay $10 mil, but they decided that part of the contract was unecessary, so he get $4.00 and an Arby's coupon?

NA

Well, first Price never signed the contract:

Price agreed to a seven-year contract worth $10 million with but never signed it.

http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Sports&storyId=716318&topic=Mike+Price

Second, do they have the right to limit his personal life in such broad and vague terms?

Finally, what did he do that could get the school sued?

 

[Wolverine]

Sorry for butting in... I'll leave the last for NA.

Well, first Price never signed the contract:

[Prices attorney Steve] Heninger told The Birmingham News that he believes Price's seven-year, $10 million contract was still valid under state law even though it was unsigned. (Source)

Second, do they have the right to limit his personal life in such broad and vague terms?

Yep. The position of head football coach, particularly at Alabama, is far from an ordinary job.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, first Price never signed the contract: http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Sports&storyId=716318&topic=Mike+Price

Then he has nothing to complain about. They decided not to hire him and complete the proposed contract. . . Or (to use your terms) do you get to dictate who they give the job to?

As pointed out above, his lawyer claims he is still entitled to the ten million (or whatever) because they had an agreement, even without formal signature. That is largely mott for this discussion, however.

The point remains that he knew the requirements after the last fiasco -- the administration spelled out thewy they could not afford a scandal because it would tarnish the reputation of the school. They have every right to take that issue seriously. His escapades could hurt the school's reputation, hurt the donations from alumni, hurt the recruitment for the sports program, etc. etc. Its a damn valid concern and the contract doesn't "dictate" his lifestyle, because he can simply not sign it and do as he darn well pleases.

Second, do they have the right to limit his personal life in such broad and vague terms?

Yep. See above.

Finally, what did he do that could get the school sued?

Sleeping with/hitting on students is harassment. A head coach may himself be a supervisor for purposes of federal law against the school, but if the adminiostration knows about it and allows him to continue coaching, there is no question that the school could be brought in as a defendant.

I know; some years back I pursued such a school district over such a coach at the high school level for a large sum of money. A very large sum.


NA

 

[Wolverine]

The point remains that he knew the requirements after the last fiasco -- the administration spelled out thewy they could not afford a scandal because it would tarnish the reputation of the school. They have every right to take that issue seriously. His escapades could hurt the school's reputation, hurt the donations from alumni, hurt the recruitment for the sports program, etc.

Exactly. Even moreso in light of recent history.

 

[Thumper]

Then he has nothing to complain about. They decided not to hire him and complete the proposed contract. . . Or (to use your terms) do you get to dictate who they give the job to?

As pointed out above, his lawyer claims he is still entitled to the ten million (or whatever) because they had an agreement, even without formal signature. That is largely mott for this discussion, however.

The point remains that he knew the requirements after the last fiasco -- the administration spelled out thewy they could not afford a scandal because it would tarnish the reputation of the school. They have every right to take that issue seriously. His escapades could hurt the school's reputation, hurt the donations from alumni, hurt the recruitment for the sports program, etc. etc. Its a damn valid concern and the contract doesn't "dictate" his lifestyle, because he can simply not sign it and do as he darn well pleases.




Yep. See above.



Sleeping with/hitting on students is harassment. A head coach may himself be a supervisor for purposes of federal law against the school, but if the adminiostration knows about it and allows him to continue coaching, there is no question that the school could be brought in as a defendant.

I know; some years back I pursued such a school district over such a coach at the high school level for a large sum of money. A very large sum.


NA

Hitting on a student (over 18) at a party is not necessarily harassment. And as for a coach being a supervisor, perhaps to his players, but to college students in general?

And your high school example is hardly similar. High school students are not college students.

Final question: Where is the line to be drawn? Do coaches and professors and presidents have no right to a private life? Are universities able to require them to lead perfectly moral lives? And who gets to define moral? Ethical, I understand. Moral? Nope. No one has the right to tell me what my morals should be. That is between me and my god.

 

[Thumper]

Exactly. Even moreso in light of recent history.

There's a big difference between breaking NCAA rules to unfairly better a team and going to a strip club. The first is an ethics violation that unevens the playing field for other teams. The second is something consenting adults are legally able to do. There is a big difference.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Hitting on a student (over 18) at a party is not necessarily harassment. And as for a coach being a supervisor, perhaps to his players, but to college students in general?

The university can get sued just as quick -- "not necessarily' harassment may mean, if you're lucky, you get out on summary judgment after spending a ton of money defending your school -- either way it gets into the papers. And 'not necessarily' harassment is also 'not necessarily not,' -- why should the University take that chance?

I can only repeat part of the prior post: "His escapades could hurt the school's reputation, hurt the donations from alumni, hurt the recruitment for the sports program, etc. etc. Its a damn valid concern. . . . "

Final question: Where is the line to be drawn? Do coaches and professors and presidents have no right to a private life?

Coaches being required to not hit on students and avoiding getting the University into the papers with a scandal != no right to a private life.

The line gets drawn where the parties agree to draw it. The University has a right to look out for its reputation and ability to draw students and donations. If the coach objects to agreeing to a morals clause, he is free to not sign up for the ten million dollars.

I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't see a contract between the two parties as stripping away the coach's autonomy. It is a voluntary agreement that was accepted by both sides, and he should live up to it if he agreed to it. Likewise, except for constitutionally-suspect reasons, such as race, the University should be able to decide what type of person that they want representing the school.

NA

 

[Wolverine]

There's a big difference between breaking NCAA rules to unfairly better a team and going to a strip club. The first is an ethics violation that unevens the playing field for other teams. The second is something consenting adults are legally able to do. There is a big difference.

Perhaps I should have illustrated my point more clearly.

In a climate where the school's football program has been a hotbed of controversy for the last decade, Alabama is trying to improve its image, especially since the team is still on probation with the NCAA. Price's actions did not help those efforts whatsoever, and it is certainly the school's discretion to make a personnel change to best accomplish its goals. The burden now rests upon the shoulders of Mike Shula, who was just officially named as the new head coach.

 

[Thumper]

The line gets drawn where the parties agree to draw it. The University has a right to look out for its reputation and ability to draw students and donations. If the coach objects to agreeing to a morals clause, he is free to not sign up for the ten million dollars.

I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't see a contract between the two parties as stripping away the coach's autonomy. It is a voluntary agreement that was accepted by both sides, and he should live up to it if he agreed to it. Likewise, except for constitutionally-suspect reasons, such as race, the University should be able to decide what type of person that they want representing the school.

NA

I will agree that he is totally out of line demanding that the school should pay him his money eventhough he didn't sign the contract. I find his action there a little odd (to say the least).

As for hurting the image of the school. Well, I'll agree that we'll disagree on that one. I think that the school's reaction is more scandalous than his actions (as we know tham at this point). But, I'm just a frustrated libertarian here.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I will agree that he is totally out of line demanding that the school should pay him his money eventhough he didn't sign the contract. I find his action there a little odd (to say the least).

Essentially, he is hoping that the school will knuckle under because of the huge amounts of press that the suit will continue to generate, and offer to pay him a million or three to go away.

As for hurting the image of the school. Well, I'll agree that we'll disagree on that one. I think that the school's reaction is more scandalous than his actions (as we know tham at this point). But, I'm just a frustrated libertarian here.

I understand where you're coming from with regard to their reaction; if it were a private matter with no negative publicity for the school I'd be more inclined to agree. But with the press firestorm, it isn't exactly his "private" life that they're making the decision on. Its an area where reasonable people can disagree.


NA